En el marco de los debates sobre los procesos políticos actuales en América Latina, este trabajo presenta un análisis crítico del artículo «La democracia en América Latina: la alternativa entre populismo y democracia deliberativa» de O. Guariglia. La lectura del trabajo nos permite mostrar las limitaciones de la argumentación. Por un lado porque no confronta una posición normativa de la democracia deliberativa contra otra concepción normativa que defendería el populismo (en la obra de E. Laclau). Por otro lado, porque las (...) evidencias empíricas sobre los populismos realmente existentes son escasas e imprecisas. Estos límites sin embargo contribuyen al debate porque reavivan la controversia sobre ¿qué democracia? Y habilitan distintas preguntas como ¿Qué conceptos normativos de democracia están presentes en la región? ¿cuáles han sido los alcances de los procesos políticos en América Latina bajo gobiernos «populistas» en el siglo XIX? ¿Qué posibilidades reales hay de democratizar ordenes sociales atravesados por profundas desigualdades como las de los países latinoamericanos?. Las respuestas a estos interrogantes pueden elaborarse desde distintas miradas que aportan pluralidad al debate. (shrink)

El artículo expone, en primer lugar, la relevancia de la deliberación como procedimiento en la teoría de la democracia deliberativa habermasiana. Luego se destaca la centralidad del procedimiento en el espacio público y en la configuración de una democracia de calidad. Finalmente se explicitan de forma sintética los aportes que puede realizar la teoría de la democracia deliberativa ante los desafíos teóricos y prácticos que representan la globalización, la interculturalidad y la exclusión. The following paper presents, firstly, the relevance of (...) deliberation as a procedure in Habermas’s theory of deliberative democracy. Then, it highlights the centrality of the mentioned procedure in the public space and in the configuration of a quality democracy. Finally, it summarizes the contributions that the theory of deliberative democracy can make to the theoretical and practical challenges posed by globalization, multiculturalism and exclusion. (shrink)

Desde su origen en el siglo V a.C., la democracia como régimen político ha mantenido cierto núcleo normativo constante, la igualdad y la libertad entre sus miembros, y fuertes discontinuidades en la organización interna de sus instituciones. Las democracias modernas son igualmente deudoras de dos tradiciones: por un lado la de la soberanía popular, sea bajo la forma de una democracia directa o bajo la forma de una constitución mixta republicana; y, por otro lado, la de los derechos subjetivos innatos. (...) La democracia resolvió los dilemas que le presentaban los intereses contrapuestos por medio de dos recursos: el de la representación -que permitía incorporarlos en un cuerpo colegiado reducido dentro del cual era posible la deliberación y el acuerdo- y el de la elección universal de los representantes y mandatarios por períodos acotados. Este esquema institucional amenaza quebrarse bajo la tensión insostenible de las exigencias domésticas de cada nación, por una parte, y las potentes constricciones provenientes de una economía globalizada, por la otra. From its very beginning during the fifth century B.C. democracy, as a politi-cal regime, has maintained a constant normative nucleus; equality and freedom among its members. But it also presents notorious discontinuities in the institu-tional internal organization. Modern democracies are equally indebted to two traditions; on the one hand popular sovereignty, under the form of either direct democracy or republican mixed constitution, and innate subjective rights on the other. Democracy resolved the dilemmas that emerged from opposed interests through two ways: representation, which enables it to incorporate them in a reduced collegiate body, within which deliberation and consensus is possible, and also through the universal election of representatives and governors by pre-established periods of time. This institutional schema is dangerously falling apart due to domestic tensions within each nation, on the one hand, and the constriction coming from the globalized economy on the other. (shrink)

Modern democracy attempted to solve the dilemmas posed by opposing features from various traditions through two strategies: representation, which allowed it to incorporate citizens’ conflicting interests within a restricted collegiate group that permitted deliberation and agreement, on one side, and universal choice of representatives and governments for limited periods of time, on the other. Since the first decades of the 20th century, this notion of democracy within the framework of a republican constitution was opposed by another one that rejected all (...) forms of parliamentarianism, discussion and public deliberation in the name of a “democracy” based on the identity and homogeneity of a mass of people under the hegemonic leadership of a party, centered around the will and decisions of a managing elite and a charismatic leader, viewed as the sole representative of the people themselves. Both forms of democracy –strict and perverted – are being harassed by the powers unleashed by globalization and transnationalisation that are becoming alien oligarchies, opposed to the notion of citizenship and restrictive of its rights. In liberal parliamentary democracies the functional imperative issued by the financial sector is channeled through a crisis cabinet that assimilates demands and transforms them by managing an ever-changing budget whose aim is to add new sufferings to the bulk of the population that can only counteract through protest. Given the constitutional backdrop of these societies, with their deep democratic network, the gradual transformation of the European Union into a transnational arena fuelled by “a club of chiefs of state” has only made yet more patent the oligarchic turn of its post-crisis evolution. In plebiscite democracies the turn was operated through a sovereign entrenchment of the power of the oligarchy on the pretext of resistance to the pressure set by globalization. Since the onset of the 90s, Latin America as well as countries in Eastern Europe have witnessed a gradual turn toward what O’Donnell has termed “delegative democracies”, or neo-populism, according to other authors. These regimes are characterized by exalting a populist leader, upholding him as a savior who will gauge the needs and wishes of the mass of individuals without intermediaries, focusing mainly on those who feel excluded from the mainstream of institutionalized democracy. This ensures feedback to populist regimes supported by a hegemonic political party that lives on State resources and on the rampant corruption it protects in order to finance ‘clientelism’ among those excluded from the system by the policies of the State itself. (shrink)

In this article the author presents a critical review of populism as it has been implemented in recent years in some Latin American countries. The article begins with a description of institutions and international economic and political crises; it then analyzes and criticizes the political alternative as presented by populism. And lastly, it explains the political ideal that derives from a constitutional democracy. The author offers a response that seeks to overcome the choice between national “populism” and international “cosmopolitanism-liberalism” by (...) way of a new reformist perspective at the international level of global governance. The point of departure for this comes from a democratization initiative within the countries undertaken by the nations of Latin America. (shrink)